"The remains also confirm how much of a hybrid these creatures were between humans and apes. While they had legs like humans that enabled them to walk upright on two feet, they had shoulders like gorillas that may have also enabled them to climb trees; while their teeth seem to have grown quickly, like chimps' teeth, their brains may have matured more slowly, like humans."
- "Lucy Species Skeleton Found" Washington Post Sep 20, 2006 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092001097.html
2006-09-20 09:44:27 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I have not followed your debate at all, and would like to know what the arguments are, especially in light of missing link finds. Thanks.
2006-09-20 09:46:30 · update #1
Wow, that's pretty cool, if it's accurate. Seems I remember something about that skeleton Lucy being dated too far back, that they did further tests and found out their original date was wrong. But I can't remember by how much, so maybe I'm wrong.
I'm a creationist, and know that there is one point within the Bible that allows for millions of years span. That would be the point between Genesis Chapter 2 (which is just sort of a repeat of Ch. 1) and Chapter 3. No one can say how long Adam and Eve were within the Garden after creation. Whoever added up that whole 8,000 years thought they were there about a week I guess lol.
2006-09-20 09:59:20 · answer #1 · answered by arewethereyet 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's a ape skull.
You do know that’s junk science don't you? Academia has brainwashed the culture and the empty students into believing man is a primitive creature and the dinosaurs lived ages before him. This is the result of pseudo science and theories of evolution being taught as near fact in schools.
2006-09-20 10:04:34 · answer #2 · answered by Pearly Gator 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Cool! New finds are being made all the time.
The Lord works in mysterious ways . . .
:)
PS The existence of more and more complex forms of life existing as time goes on may be strong circumstantial evidence of evolution, but does not in and of itself prove that species changed into other species. As an extreme example, one could line up automobiles from the last 100 years and see them developing into more complex, powerful and efficient vehicles, but that would not prove that they changed themselves. I may write a question of my own on this . . .
2006-09-20 09:47:13 · answer #3 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not all creationists are young Earthers who think the universe is less than ten thousand years old. So the missing link thing wouldn't mean anything to them.
2006-09-20 09:54:44 · answer #4 · answered by westfallwatergardens 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
check out a book called "Darwin on trial". It might answer a lot of your questions. Also, "Creator and the Cosmos" is another good book you might want to read.
2006-09-20 09:56:42 · answer #5 · answered by Michelle 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's the remains of Jesus's child. Come pray to it...worship it...make it Holy....
No, they will scream about carbon dating not being accurate and dispute it. Science is a sin to them.
2006-09-20 09:48:58 · answer #6 · answered by rab2344 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋